- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:21:22 +0100
- To: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
- Cc: Scooter Morris <scooter@cgl.ucsf.edu>, www-svg@w3c.org
* Peter Sorotokin wrote:
>Yes - and one important difference about Last Call period is that the WG is
>required to review (and, I think, respond) to all comments made on this list.
[...]
A document receives review from the moment it is first published.
Starting with the First Public Working Draft until the start of a
Proposed Recommendation review, a Working Group MUST formally address
any substantive review comment about a technical report and SHOULD do
so in a timely manner.
[...] -- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/process#doc-reviews
Where formally addressing an issue means
[...]
In the context of this document, a group has formally addressed an
issue when it has sent a substantive response to the reviewer who
raised the issue. A substantive response is expected to include
rationale for decisions (e.g., a technical explanation, a pointer to
charter scope, or a pointer to a requirements document). The adequacy
of a response is measured against what a W3C reviewer would generally
consider to be technically sound.
[...] -- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/process#formal-address
Doing so is an entrance criterion for Last Call since February 2001,
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/process.html#last-call
[...]
5.2.2 Last Call Working Draft
Entrance criteria. Before advancing a technical report to Last Call
Working Draft, the Working Group must:
1. fulfill the relevant requirements of the Working Group charter and
those of any accompanying requirements documents, or document which
relevant requirements they have not fulfilled;
2. formally address all issues raised by Working Group participants,
other Working Groups, the Membership, and the public about the
Working Draft.
[...]
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 14:22:01 UTC